Federalism does not give the states the power to do as they please willy-nilly. It gives them some local-governance leeway on issues that are unique or particularly important to the people within them. It does not give them the right to completely defy Federal law. The system is set up in a pyramid fashion for a reason, and last I checked, the Feds are on top, which means in a contest of laws, they win.

If Federalism acted the way you think it should, then it wouldn't even be Federalism. Individual states would be their own nations, giving states the powers of full nations is not the purpose of Federalism.

And IMO: Federalism is a ridiculously outdated concept anyway. We are ONE nation, not a collection of member states like the UN.

Originally Posted by Masark

People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.

Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

Federalism does not give the states the power to do as they please willy-nilly. It gives them some local-governance leeway on issues that are unique or particularly important to the people within them. It does not give them the right to completely defy Federal law.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This means if the Constitution doesn't say the Federal Government is responsible for making laws about a specific area, they have no authority to make a law pertaining to that area.

Also don't you think it's a strange coincidence that the word STATE is actually a synonym for nation, odd..

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This means if the Constitution doesn't say the Federal Government is responsible for making laws about a specific area, they have no authority to make a law pertaining to that area.

And what areas the Feds do have say in is a lot broader than you strict Constitutionalists like to think.

Also don't you think it's a strange coincidence that the word STATE is actually a synonym for nation, odd..

No. Do you think it's odd that a state of mind and a state of residence both use state? Do you find it suspicious that country and county are only off by one letter? We are a single nation partitioned into smaller segments for easing certain aspects of governance. We are not a treaty-union of pre-existing nations.

Originally Posted by Masark

People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.

Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

But I also think that the Federal Gov has no authority to make any drug illegal, there is nothing in the Constitution giving them this power, and as such should be left to each individual state to decide on it's own. That is exactly what Colorado and Washington did.

So, when the words "small government" are thrown out... all it means is surface? small as in "it governs over a small territory"?

On topic: as far as i know, the US is a UN member. So the US is paying these guys to get their advice on certain bits of legislation that require international cooperation to work better.

So, you pay them to advice you on how to obtain better international coordination... and now you are unhappy to obtain that advice?

Federalism does not give the states the power to do as they please willy-nilly. It gives them some local-governance leeway on issues that are unique or particularly important to the people within them. It does not give them the right to completely defy Federal law. The system is set up in a pyramid fashion for a reason, and last I checked, the Feds are on top, which means in a contest of laws, they win.

If Federalism acted the way you think it should, then it wouldn't even be Federalism. Individual states would be their own nations, giving states the powers of full nations is not the purpose of Federalism.

And IMO: Federalism is a ridiculously outdated concept anyway. We are ONE nation, not a collection of member states like the UN.

Yeah, the whole idea kinda got outdated when travel between states became as trivial as a few hours.

And what areas the Feds do have say in is a lot broader than you strict Constitutionalists like to think.

Only because of terrible unfounded supreme court rulings.

Originally Posted by smrund

Do you think it's odd that a state of mind and a state of residence both use state?

This isn't a matter of homonyms, and by that i don't mean matter as in atomic matter. The defination of the word state, as it was used in the name United States of America, is nation state. They joined to promote trade and to pool defensive power, not to give up the majority of their power to a large Federal Government.

Originally Posted by smrund

Do you find it suspicious that country and county are only off by one letter?

Yes, I think it's an elaborate plot by the corporations that produce the "R" keys on all our keyboards to make us their puppets.

Originally Posted by smrund

We are a single nation partitioned into smaller segments for easing certain aspects of governance.

Wrong. We are 50 nations joined for the reasons I already stated. (Don't confuse the use of the word stated in the last sentence to mean nation state, wouldn't want you to get confused by another homonym.)

A strict interpretation is still an interpretation. The fact of the matter is that statuatory legislation (of which the Constitution is by nature) has a lifespan of relevancy before it becomes difficult to apply. Ergo Common Law stepping in to fill that gap.

This isn't a matter of homonyms, and by that i don't mean matter as in atomic matter. The defination of the word state, as it was used in the name United States of America, is nation state. They joined to promote trade and to pool defensive power, not to give up the majority of their power to a large Federal Government.

Times change, and the oriental model of central government tends to win out over federalism because federalism is not an effective mechanism for dealing with crises.

Wrong. We are 50 nations joined for the reasons I already stated. (Don't confuse the use of the word stated in the last sentence to mean nation state, wouldn't want you to get confused by another homonym.)

The cultures of the varying states are not heterogenous enough to merit the application of the term nation.

Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

- Thucydides

There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.

This isn't a matter of homonyms, and by that i don't mean matter as in atomic matter. The defination of the word state, as it was used in the name United States of America, is nation state. They joined to promote trade and to pool defensive power, not to give up the majority of their power to a large Federal Government.

No, it isn't. Read up on history. Before they were states they were territories owned by the US Federal Government. They were granted statehood when they joined the union. The USA's use of "state" is no different than the Candaian use of "provinces". Any other interpretation displays ignorance of history. Only one state joined the USA through treaty. Several states were created from a non-USA territory that joined willingly(but not through treaty).

Yes, I think it's an elaborate plot by the corporations that produce the "R" keys on all our keyboards to make us their puppets.

Well at least you have a sense of humor.

Wrong. We are 50 nations joined for the reasons I already stated. (Don't confuse the use of the word stated in the last sentence to mean nation state, wouldn't want you to get confused by another homonym.)

NO. You are wrong. Read American history again. Before they were states, the vast majority of the Nation was territory. As that territory was settled and developed local governance, they applied for statehood(because statehood carried political representation and other things that people like from their nation). Only Texas joined via treaty, and the American Pacific southwest was forcefully absorbed. The states were then later divided up from that territory as they became more populated.

This is basic US history. I suggest you read up on it. We are not a union of 5 member nations. There is no treaty joining us together. The Federal government owns all the land in the nation, smaller governments are just given permission to exact more local control over portions of it.

Originally Posted by Masark

People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.

Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
Blizzard removed my subscription from WoD's features, it'll be added sometime later.
And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

Ah, yes Wickard, probably the most absurd economic decision SCOTUS has ever made, the sad thing is, that the decision has never been overturned and as such pretty much everything is part of the interstate commerce, hell even totaly unrelated thing like the gun free zones got (albeit with a modification) passed on the interstate market rationale...

Also you should note that the court has already ruled in Gonzales that Federal government can regulate (ie ban) medical marijuana due to the commerce clause, so this fight has already been lost.

The most interesting thing about Gonzales is actually not the stupid, yet expected ruling, but the fact that the decision was 6:3 with all the liberal justices being in the majority and 3 of the conservatives dissenting. This is yet another proof, that sadly, that Liberals on SCOTUS defend federal power first and individual liberty second all too often.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

The Controlled Substances Act (1970) was passed by congress and signed by President Nixon, enforcing the Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs treaty of 1961.

Even though the voters in Washington and Colorado vote to legalize marijuana, it still is a direct conflict with Federal law. Until the states and the federal government can work out a solution to this problem, it will still be illegal in those states.

The most interesting thing about Gonzales is actually not the stupid, yet expected ruling, but the fact that the decision was 6:3 with all the liberal justices being in the majority and 3 of the conservatives dissenting. This is yet another proof, that sadly, that Liberals on SCOTUS defend federal power first and individual liberty second all too often.

That would imply that the judiciary has any executive power. It took 10 years for Brown to be enforced, for instance.

---------- Post added 2012-11-21 at 01:29 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Aredyl

Even though the voters in Washington and Colorado vote to legalize marijuana, it still is a direct conflict with Federal law. Until the states and the federal government can work out a solution to this problem, it will still be illegal in those states.

I really doubt that the current administration is going to do anything apart from the occasional show-raid of a dispensary. Not to mention there don't tend to be many Federales in either WA or Colorado.

Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

- Thucydides

There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.

I disagree with everything that man said, we can only hope US officials don't listen to him.

I'm surprised the law passed was just for a "small" amount though and not just legalizing it in every way. Who will be selling it? Are businesses allowed to own large amounts but not the people? Really that part helps stop drug dealers but that's kind of pointless with it being legal, how many drug dealers push alcohol for example?

That would imply that the judiciary has any executive power. It took 10 years for Brown to be enforced, for instance.

---------- Post added 2012-11-21 at 01:29 AM ----------

I really doubt that the current administration is going to do anything apart from the occasional show-raid of a dispensary. Not to mention there don't tend to be many Federales in either WA or Colorado.

Well there is one fundamental difference between Brown and Marijuana, for Brown to be enforced, the executive had to be forced into co-operating, whereas here, judiciary itself could simply stop all drug trial if the SCOTUS had seen fit to decide otherwise.

As for medical marijuana, well Obama claimed in his first term that federals wont interfere and we all know how that ended.

I really doubt that the current administration is going to do anything apart from the occasional show-raid of a dispensary. Not to mention there don't tend to be many Federales in either WA or Colorado.

From the 2012 Voters' Guide, outlining initiative 502 (Washington):

"This measure would license and regulate marijuana production, distribution, and possession for persons over twenty-one; remove state-law criminal and civil penalties for activities that it authorizes; tax marijuana sales; and earmark marijuana-related revenues."

I really doubt that the current administration is going to do anything apart from the occasional show-raid of a dispensary. Not to mention there don't tend to be many Federales in either WA or Colorado.

I wouldn't be surprised if Obama administration pulled shit like that.